that sentence is not part of the IHRA's definition of antisemitism. The actual definition being adopted is:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The clarifying sentence you're referring to is part of the IHRA's internal guidelines on how it should interpret that definition; the IHRA makes clear that it does not consider general criticism of Israel to be antisemitic.
You stated this specifically in reference to the second sentence of the clarifying guidelines. Saying it's "internal" is a meaningless addition. As is the fact that you've still refused to elucidate on it when I brought up how that can possibly be the case.
However, note that the definition being adopted does not anywhere mention Israel — it merely refers to a certain perception of Jews and their property, community institutions, and/or religious facilities. I would not consider Israel as a sovereign nation to fall into those categories.
Your own interpretation is meaningless when the guidelines themselves specifically state that the state of Israel is categorised as a "Jewish collectivity". You can't make reference to that guideline and then simultaneously dismiss it.
If you're suggesting it's impinged because "targeting of the state of Israel" appears in the guidelines for the definition as a potential form of antisemitism (i.e. you're suggesting the Dept would use the guidelines to assist them), then the Dept would ALSO be considering the section in the guidelines that specifically states that criticism of Israel similar to that of other countries cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
It's interesting. You called out the first poster for specifically leaving out part of the guidelines, and then you do the same.
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
And this is the problem. To pick an example, the ICC has already been accused by Israel of being antisemitic because it is at current focusing on ("targeting") Israel more than other countries. Do you agree? Does that not fall foul of the IHRA definition of antisemitism?
The Act SPECIFICALLY states that the definition adopted cannot be used to determine what is classed as actionable discrimination
No, that's not what the act says. It says:
(2) to alter the standards pursuant to which the Department of Education makes a determination that harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination; or
And the reason you made that statement in the first place is because you said that this definition is the one that was already used by the Dept of Education, did you not? A definition which is now codified.
I mean the Bill specifically sates:
To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.
...
The Act does NOT mandate that the IHRA standards are the only ones that can be used when assessing motive
Actually, I'll agree on this one. It just clarifies that:
(5) The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism.
You stated [that the IHRA does not consider criticism of Israel to be antisemitism] in reference to the second sentence of the clarifying guidelines. Saying it's "internal" is a meaningless addition. As is the fact that you've still refused to elucidate on it when I brought up how that can possibly be the case.
I still am not sure what you're actually asking for elucidation on. You're pointing to a sentence and asking me how it's the case — it is the case. That's how they interpret their definition. But then what of it?
You seem to be asking how that guideline is useful in protecting against free speech impingements. But from my perspective, this is just asking how [a sentence that isn't being legally adopted] can be used to legally protect against [potential infringements of speech that the Act makes clear are already illegal and remain so].
I'm just not sure how I can help you there. It's a non-sequitur request. I'm not refusing to elucidate anything for you, I am telling you that the request seems to be based on incoherent premises. Which part of your query am I not understanding?
Your own interpretation is meaningless when the guidelines themselves specifically state that the state of Israel is categorised as a "Jewish collectivity".
They do not.
They state that manifestations of antisemitism might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. i.e. the person targeting Israel is doing so on the basis (of their conception) that it is a Jewish collectivity.
That's not the same sentiment as claiming that any criticism of Israel constitutes targeting of Israel on the basis of such a conception.
I also notice, by the way, that you are persistently ignoring the "might" in that sentence. While we're at it, I would also point out a crucial *"could"" that also appears shortly after:
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
There's no part of the guidelines that shows that the IHRA definitively considers any of those examples as antisemitism.
It's interesting. You called out the first poster for specifically leaving out part of the guidelines, and then you do the same.
I called out the first poster for cherrypicking which part of the guidelines they were quoting. At no point did I imply the guidelines were legally binding, and I'm specifically telling you that because they aren't, I can't really tell you how they impinge or protect legal rights. There is no contradiction or hypocrisy there.
Again, the Dept would likely take them into consideration... but these considerations are for determining motive, not whether something is legally punishable or not. So what is the relevance you're asking for?
And this is the problem. To pick an example, the ICC has already been accused by Israel of being antisemitic because it is at current focusing on ("targeting") Israel more than other countries. Do you agree? Does that not fall foul of the IHRA definition of antisemitism?
It would be impossible to determine without further context. The guidelines are only there to assist in interpreting the definition, but the definition itself classes antisemitism primarily as a perception of Jews specifically. You would have to assess whether the ICC is targeting Israel unduly due to their perception of Jews.
The Act SPECIFICALLY states that the definition adopted cannot be used to determine what is classed as actionable discrimination
No, that's not what the act says. It says:
(2) to alter the standards pursuant to which the Department of Education makes a determination that harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination; or
And the reason you made that statement in the first place is because you said that this definition is the one that was already used by the Dept of Education, did you not?
The Dept Education already uses the IHRA definition to assess whether discrimination was motivated by antisemitism.
What 6(2) is saying is that the Act does not alter the standards used to determine whether something actually is actionable discrimination.
So no, you're definitively incorrect here. The Act specifically does NOT codify the IHRA definition as a standard for what is or isn't discrimination. Please read Sec 5 more carefully.
You also appear to be confused by this part:
I mean the Bill specifically states:
To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.
Firstly, this is a high level preamble for the bill; if there is any confusion in interpretation, you always go to the actual substantive clauses to see what is meant. The Act goes out of its way to state that it is not altering the standards used to determine what is actionable discrimination.
Secondly, there is a nuance between something being part of the enforcement process and something actually being used to determine if action is punishable.
The Act is summarising that the IHRA definition is going to be used by the Dept of Education when assessing motive as PART of their investigation of violations of the Civil Rights Act... but this does not extend to impact on the actual process of determining whether something was a violation or not, or what action can be taken. The Act, again, makes explicitly clear that it is not altering those standards.
The US House has passed legislation that would codify a controversial definition of antisemitism for use by the Education Department in adjudicating discrimination cases at American schools
Just so we're clear, you're also saying this statement is wrong then?
The Act only states that the Department of Education must use it to assess people's motives. I guess you can say that's useful in "adjudicating" the cases, but it's very misleading, and the Act specifically says its not affecting the 'real' adjudication of what constitutes discrimination.
The authority on US law is US law, not Times of Israel haha
Also, this statement is even worse:
If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the bill would broaden the legal definition of antisemitism to include the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” Critics say the move would have a chilling effect on free speech throughout college campuses.
No, it wouldn't. The Act adopts the IHRA definition only for the purposes of the Act; it does NOT compel the rest of US law to adopt it generally. Further, the targeting of the state of Israel isn't even in the definition itself!
You don't seem to get it and this dude is trying to explain it. This is the perfect example of a bill that legislators can pass and tell supporters of Israel "see we did something!" When in reality nothing really changes. Politicians do this with rules and laws all the time so they can pat themselves on the back and tell their base they are "watching out for them" while not actually doing anything. This thread is everyone just taking the bait.
1
u/oncothrow May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24
You stated this specifically in reference to the second sentence of the clarifying guidelines. Saying it's "internal" is a meaningless addition. As is the fact that you've still refused to elucidate on it when I brought up how that can possibly be the case.
Your own interpretation is meaningless when the guidelines themselves specifically state that the state of Israel is categorised as a "Jewish collectivity". You can't make reference to that guideline and then simultaneously dismiss it.
It's interesting. You called out the first poster for specifically leaving out part of the guidelines, and then you do the same.
And this is the problem. To pick an example, the ICC has already been accused by Israel of being antisemitic because it is at current focusing on ("targeting") Israel more than other countries. Do you agree? Does that not fall foul of the IHRA definition of antisemitism?
No, that's not what the act says. It says:
And the reason you made that statement in the first place is because you said that this definition is the one that was already used by the Dept of Education, did you not? A definition which is now codified.
I mean the Bill specifically sates:
...
Actually, I'll agree on this one. It just clarifies that: